Just who the hell does she think she is?

March 31st, 2010


Somebody screwed up when they wrote the new health bill and failed to get currently uninsured kids with pre-existing conditions properly covered the way they were supposed to be.

This is bad and needs to be fixed.

On the other hand, viagra generic treat Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is ordering insurance companies to comply with the original intent of the law despite what the law actually says.

She doesn’t get to make that decision.

She’s a fucking bureaucrat not an aristocrat.

The rest of us aren’t serfs who need to do her bidding.

Her word is NOT law.

The law is the law and if the administration doesn’t like the law, generic viagra buy viagra fucking fix it.

I very rarely swear on this blog and I apologize if I’ve offended anyone, but some situations require strong language and this sort of arrogant, high-handed, and possibly illegal behavior from a public servant falls into that category. At least, it does for me.

Entry Filed under: Observations

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Rustmeister  |  March 31st, 2010 at 11:15 am

    That’s what happens when they rush something thru before it’s ready. =(

  • 2. Chris from Racine  |  March 31st, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Amen!! The beaurocrats in Washington are now of the opinion that their word is law. SOMEONE has to tell/show them that it is NOT so. I’ll refrain from using my own ugly language…

  • 3. Debunked  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    “That’s what happens when they rush something thru before it’s ready. =(”

    Because taking a year to write something that then takes six years to become fully enacted is “rushing something through.” And why the frown face? I thought you were against this bill.

    “This is bad and needs to be fixed.”

    Wait… What? So are you for or against health care reform? I would expect people to be saying this is good a good thing – it gives insurance companies four more years of freedom, but you’re saying it is bad and needs to be fixed. I’m confused.

    Regardless, in 2014, that “loop-hole” is closed.

  • 4. Debunked  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    p.s. I’m still waiting for the objectionable and angry language. Nay, I demand it – I am on the internet, after all. I’m not sure dropping the F-bomb a couple of times qualifies.

  • 5. Michael Mathias  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Most of the people suggesting that the law needed to be fixed are Pharma lawyers looking for loopholes for their clients. And you’re just wrong about what HHS is doing. Writing the regulations about how laws are to be implemented is exactly what they’re supposed to be doing. There’s a process for objecting. This is just more crap from an industry seeking to protect their profits.

  • 6. grumps  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    And, of course, the insurance companies are already subject to regulatory rules that are not locked in laws for all kinds of reasons.

    One of the powers given to these agencies is the power to regulate.

  • 7. Elliot  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    I never said I was against health care reform.

    (Here are all the posts I’ve made on the subject: http://www.fromwhereisit.org/index.php?s=health+care&searchbutton=Go%21)

    Everyone agrees health care needs to be reformed.

    I’m not thrilled with the new law. I’m absolutely positive it will result in higher premiums and higher taxes.

    And I think we should have attacked the cost side of the equation before the coverage side.

    But the truth is, I haven’t written much about the “right” way to reform health care because I’ll be damned if I know what that is.

  • 8. Elliot  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    I’m sorry Michael and Grumps, but I am not wrong. Yes, regulations play a role. And bureaucrats often have wide leeway when executing the details of a law. But regulation can’t create new law it can only clarify within a law.

    For example, she couldn’t suddenly write a regulation that declared that adults with pre-existing conditions are covered tomorrow despite the language that’s in the law.

    And, again, I’m not against FIXING the law. But I am very much against bureaucratic overreach.

  • 9. Elliot  |  March 31st, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    But I thought you considered everything I wrote to be objectionable on it’s face, Debunked. ;)

    I swear often and freely in real life, but I try to have a higher standard when I blog.

  • 10. Rustmeister  |  March 31st, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Debunked, I was/still am against this bill. It is completely backwards in my opinion, and is going to cost three times as much as we’ve been told.

    But, I also expect something passing into law to accomplish what is says it will accomplish.

    I fully expected hiccups to develop over the years of implementation, but how long has it been? A week?

    Such a major blunder, too….

  • 11. Michael Mathias  |  March 31st, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    In my comment I, of course, meant the insurance industry and not the pharmaceutical industry.

    But I’m still not sure what you’re actually objecting to here. The only ones suggesting the law has a loophole are lawyers for the insurance industry and employer groups. They’re welcome to their opinion, but it’s just that–an opinion. Sebelius has as much right to assert her view that they’re wrong and that they have to follow the law.

    So, really, what’s the problem? She doesn’t have fewer rights to exercise than the industry does. If they have a case, they can file one. And unless and until they prevail in court, they have to follow the law. They can’t just decide for themselves what the law says.

    In the meantime, Sebelius is only exercising her duty, as part of the Executive Branch, to enforce the laws Congress passes. All of this is spelled out in the Constitution.

  • 12. TerryN  |  March 31st, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Like Orwell wrote, the pigs have moved into the farmer’s house. It’s now a matter of time…

  • 13. Debunked  |  April 1st, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Sounds like somebody forgot to put on their tin-foil hat.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments